Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in...5
×
 

Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report

on

  • 251 views

This report on "Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report" is prepared by Pelangi Indonesia as commissioned by the UN-REDD Programme in Indonesia. The writing team consists of ...

This report on "Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report" is prepared by Pelangi Indonesia as commissioned by the UN-REDD Programme in Indonesia. The writing team consists of Fitrian Ardiansyah, Melati, Boyke Lakaseru, Reza Anggara and Yasmi Adriansyah. This report presents an analysis to stimulate discussion on the geopolitical situation of REDD+ negotiation at the global level. The views expressed are entirely of Pelangi Indonesia and the writing team’s own and not that of the UN-REDD Indonesia Programme or the Government of the Republic of Indonesia.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
251
Views on SlideShare
251
Embed Views
0

Actions

Likes
0
Downloads
13
Comments
0

0 Embeds 0

No embeds

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Adobe PDF

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment

Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report Geopolitical Map of REDD+ Negotiation: An Analytical Report Document Transcript

  • GEOPOLITICAL MAP OF REDD+ NEGOTIATION: An analytical report UN-REDD INDONESIA PROGRAMME October 2012
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report ii | P a g e Report Disclaimer This report is prepared by Pelangi Indonesia. The writing team consists of Fitrian Ardiansyah, Melati, Boyke Lakaseru, Reza Anggara and Yasmi Adriansyah. This report presents an analysis to stimulate discussion on the geopolitical situation of REDD+ negotiation at the global level. The views expressed are entirely of Pelangi Indonesia and the writing team’s own and not that of the UN-REDD Indonesia Programme or the Government of the Republic of Indonesia.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report iii | P a g e Table of Contents Report Disclaimer ii Acronyms iv Executive Summary vi 1. Introduction 1 1.1. Methodology, objectives and structure of the report 3 2. Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation 4 2.1. REDD+ elements 4 2.1.1. Scope 5 2.1.2. Reference level and reference emission level 5 2.1.3. Financing 7 2.1.4. Benefit distribution mechanism 8 2.1.5. Guiding principles and safeguards 9 2.2. Parties’ positions on REDD+ toward COP-18 in Doha 11 2.2.1. Parties’ positions on REDD+ scope 12 2.2.2. Parties’ positions on REDD+ and NAMAs 13 2.2.3. Parties’ positions on REDD+, RLs and RELs 15 2.2.4. Parties’ positions on REDD+ safeguards 17 2.2.5. Parties’ positions on REDD+ financing 18 2.2.6. Parties’ positions on the level of REDD+ implementation 23 3. Additional considerations 24 3.1. Potential factors to influence REDD+ negotiation 24 3.2. Issues requiring further exploration 25 References 26 Appendix 1: Matrix of various Parties’ positions 30 Appendix 2: List of interviewees and participants of focus group discussions 46 Box 1: A brief overview of national forest monitoring systems (NFMS) 7 Box 2: Different financing options for REDD+ 19
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report iv | P a g e Acronyms AAUs: Assigned Amount Units AOSIS: Association of Small Island States ASEAN: Association of Southeast Asian Nations AWG-ADP: Ad Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action AWG-LCA: Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention BAP: Bali Action Plan C: Conservation CERs: Certified emission reductions CfRN: Coalition for Rainforest Nations CMIA: Climate Markets and Investment Association COMIFAC: Congo Basin Countries/Central African Forest Commission COP: Conference of Parties EFCS: Enhancement of forest carbon stocks EU: European Union FCPF: Forest Carbon Partnership Facility FGDs: Focus group discussions G77+China: Group of 77+China GCF: Green Climate Fund GHG: Global emissions of greenhouse gases IGES: Institute for Global Environmental Strategies IPCC: Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change IUCN: International Union for Conservation of Nature LDCs: Least Developed Countries LULUCF: Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry MRV: Measurement, reporting and verification NAMAs: Nationally Appropriate Mitigation Actions NFMS: National Forest Monitoring System NGOs: Non-Governmental Organizations NZ: New Zealand ODA: Official Development Assistance PMU: Programme Management Unit RED: Reducing emissions from deforestation REDD: Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report v | P a g e REDD+: Reducing emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks REL: Reference emission levels RL: Reference levels SBSTA: Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice SMF: Sustainable management of forests TNC: The Nature Conservancy UN: United Nations UNEP: United Nations Environment Programme UNFCCC: United Nations Framework of Convention on Climate Change UNFF: United Nations Forum on Forest UN-REDD Programme: United Nations Collaborative Programme on Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries UK: United Kingdom USA: United States of America WWF: World Wide Fund for Nature (known also as World Wildlife Fund)
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report vi | P a g e Executive Summary Land-use change processes, including deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, have been recognized as a significant contribution to global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). In the COP-13 in Bali (Indonesia) in December 2007, actions to “reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”, was incorporated as part of the global climate change mitigation actions under the Bali Action Plan. This scheme consists of (a) reducing emissions from deforestation, (b) reducing emissions from forest degradation, (c) conservation of forest carbon stocks, (d) sustainable management of forests and (e) enhancement of forest carbon stocks (or overall known as REDD+). The fundamental concept behind this scheme is to formulate policy approaches and provide financial incentives to developing countries in order to make their forests more valuable standing than cut down. Since the proposal was tabled in 2005, considerable progress has been made with regard to REDD+ in the UNFCCC negotiations process. There is consensus on a number of areas regarding the general context and elements of a REDD+ scheme. There are, however, a number of outstanding issues that need to be resolved, particularly at COP-18 in Doha, Qatar. Divergence of views among Parties remains mainly on REDD+ elements. These include a number of specific issues such reference levels (RLs)/reference emission levels (RELs), monitoring, verification and measurement (MRV), safeguards, national/sub-national implementation, financing options and distribution mechanisms. This report does not aim to provide an exhaustive coverage of all views submitted and presented by Parties and observer organizations; instead, it aims to capture strategic issues and diverging and converging views expressed by Parties and relevant organizations, as shown in their submissions, specifically on several key REDD+ elements. It is expected that this report will contribute to the existing pool of REDD+ knowledge and be useful for negotiators or anyone interested in REDD+ negotiations. To date, the most visible divergence of views between Annex I and Non-Annex I Parties is that Annex I Parties (represented mostly by developed countries) would like to ensure Non-Annex I Parties (represented mostly by developing countries) maintain their pledges in developing and implementing REDD+. At the same time, Non-Annex I Parties urge Annex I Parties to increase their ambition (increasing their emissions reduction targets), which is assumed to increase the demand for REDD+. Divergence of interest on specific issues occurs widely among Parties inside Annex I and Non-Annex I. On the REDD+ scope, different views particularly relate to whether REDD activities (comprising only reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) should be prioritized over other activities in REDD+ (i.e. conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks). There is a concern whether the future REDD+ mechanism can ensure the equal recognition of activities under REDD+ and whether these activities can be credibly measured, reported and verified so that emissions reduction and forest carbon stock maintenance and enhancement can be proven as real. On REDD+ and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs), developed country Parties emphasize a clear linkage. The majority of developing country Parties, however, are concerned with the attempts of several developed country Parties in closely linking REDD+ and NAMAs. This is mainly due to:  the ambiguities and disagreements between Parties in relation to the implementation of NAMAs;
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report vii | P a g e  the positive progress of REDD+ negotiations; thus leading to  concerns that linking both REDD+ and NAMAs will further delay the implementation of REDD+. On REDD+ and RLs/RELs, Parties have different views on approaches. The following three options have been discussed in-depth throughout the years: ‘historical baseline’; ‘historical adjusted baseline’; and ‘projected baseline’. In addition, the negotiations on methodological issues at COP-18 under SBSTA-37, may emphasize the continuation of work and negotiations on developing modalities for a national forest monitoring system (NFMS) and MRV. Elements for a possible draft decision on these matters have been prepared. With regard to REDD+ safeguards, in general, Parties agree that they are inseparable from REDD+ but divergent views remain. In COP-18, various aspects of safeguards will be discussed as important enabling conditions of REDD+ (already discussed and formulated as part of elements for Doha decision), including the aspect of transparent and effective governance. On REDD+ financing, and as part of the discussions resulting in draft elements for COP-18, developing country Parties have argued that higher emissions reduction ambitions by developed countries and a higher price of carbon are necessary to incentivize scaling up investments in results- based REDD+ activities. Specific thematic areas of REDD+ financing that attract various views from Parties are:  Financing options, sources and related enabling considerations;  The role of the private sector in REDD+ investments; and  A framework for financing the full implementation of results-based REDD+ actions: key elements and issues to be addressed, including policy aspects, governance and institutional arrangements, methodological aspects, conditions for payments, and addressing multiple benefits, drivers of deforestation and safeguards. With regard to the level of REDD+ implementation, the discussion is likely to relate to the MRV system. Many Parties argue that at the national level, the MRV system should address how to avoid displacement (formerly known as leakage) and how to increase additionality in a climate change mitigation context. For sub-national level implementation, such a robust MRV system is required to be developed and integrated into the National Carbon Accounting System. At COP-18, positions of Parties may be affected by the impacts of the current global economic crisis that may influence the negotiations on REDD+ financing, specific national situations and readiness of each country Parties as well as specific circumstance in Doha itself. Negotiating skills and capacity to analyse and lobby among negotiators eventually influence respective Parties’ positions.
  • 1. Introduction Land-use change processes, including deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, have been recognized as a significant contribution to the overall global emissions of greenhouse gases (GHG). According to the 2007 Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) Synthesis Report, the share of the forestry sector in total anthropogenic GHG emissions at the global scale is 17.4%. More recent peer-reviewed research1 revealed that the forestry gross emissions contribute to approximately just 10% of the total global human-produced carbon emissions over the time period analyzed (2000 to 2005).2 Albeit producing different figures, the two findings agree that countries3 in the tropics produced the highest emissions – from activities in the forestry sector – during the study periods.4 Although nearly 40% of all forest loss in the study region was concentrated in the dry tropics, for instance, this region accounted for only 17% of total carbon emissions, reflecting their relatively low carbon stocks in comparison to those found in moist tropical forests.5 The emissions from deforestation and relevant activities in the forestry sector remained an unaddressed issue under the United Nations Framework of Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) and Kyoto protocol until a group of Non Annex I countries – led by Costa Rica and Papua New Guinea – brought the issue formally to the 11th UNFCCC Conference of Parties (COP-11) in Montreal (Canada) in 2005. The fundamental concept behind the proposal is to formulate policy approaches and provide financial incentives to developing countries in order to make their forests more valuable standing than cut down. At the COP-13 in Bali (Indonesia) in December 2007, this agenda item, referred to in general as “Reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries”, was incorporated in the Bali Action Plan (BAP)6 . Since COP-13 it comprises (a) 1 Harris, NL, Brown, S, Hagen, SC, Saatchi, SS, Petrova, S, Salas, W, Hansen, MC, Potapov, PV & Lotsch, A 2012, ’Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions’, Science, vol. 336, no. 6088, pp. 1573-1576 2 Neither estimate includes globally significant emissions associated with the loss of carbon-dense tropical peatlands, mostly from Indonesia, where such losses are responsible for roughly half of all greenhouse gas emissions. The large difference between the two estimates may be due to difference in definitions and methodological issues. 3 The two countries in the tropics – Brazil and Indonesia – contribute the highest, accounting for 55% of total emissions from tropical deforestation (Harris et al. 2012). 4 Op. cit. Harris et al. (2012). 5 Op. cit. Harris et al. (2012). 6 In the BAP (the UNFCCC Decision 1/CP.13), the Parties to the UNFCCC agree on the words ‘Policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 2 | P a g e reducing emissions from deforestation, (b) reducing emissions from forest degradation, (c) conservation of forest carbon stocks, (d) sustainable management of forests, and (e) enhancement of forest carbon stocks (or overall known as REDD+).7 After further negotiations and refinement, REDD+ was recognized as an essential part of the Copenhagen Accord at COP-15 in Copenhagen (Denmark) as well as one of important building blocks of the Cancún Agreements at COP-16 in Cancún (Mexico), and at the last COP-17 in Durban (South Africa). Since the proposal was tabled in 2005, considerable progress has been made with regard to REDD+ in the UNFCCC negotiations process. There is consensus on a number of areas regarding its general context and elements. There are, however, a number of outstanding issues that need to be resolved, particularly at COP-18 in Doha (Qatar). To address these outstanding issues and reach further consensus, negotiators need to understand the diversity and complexity of different Parties’8 and groups of countries’ positions on REDD+, and eventually search for converging positions. Furthermore, this understanding would be useful as the basis for structurally projecting negotiation tendencies and trends, and implications of national positions, which feed back and forth to actions taken at the national and sub-national levels. To be able to do this, an analysis of the geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation is imperative. Without such comprehensive assessment, it is challenging for any country to come up with good positions which can strongly influence REDD+ negotiations at the global level and implementation at the national and sub-national levels. Based on the aforementioned purposes, the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) commissioned the Pelangi Indonesia Foundation to assist the UN-REDD Indonesia Programme to provide a solid reference on the geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiations and a guidance note to enable REDD+ negotiators to have better knowledge and awareness on these different positions. The map and guidance note are particularly useful for negotiators preparing their positions prior to the UNFCCC conferences. developing countries; and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries’. 7 Ibid. 8 Parties: ‘state parties’ to a treaty are countries which have ratified or acceded to that particular treaty – in this case the UNFCCC – and are therefore legally bound by the provisions in the instrument.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 3 | P a g e 1.1. Methodology, objectives and structure of the report This document is covering the period since COP-13 in Bali – but particularly focusing on the period after COP-16 in Cancún and prior to COP-18 in Doha. The analysis is based on an extensive literature review, submissions and documents from the United Nations (UN), different Parties’ and other relevant organizations, covering key REDD+ elements, among others, on reference level/reference emissions level, safeguards, national/sub-national implementation and financing, as well as trends, and the divergence and convergence of different REDD+ positions. Wherever possible, references to documents have been inserted as footnotes.9 To obtain additional insights into the REDD+ negotiation realm, semi-structured interviews were conducted with relevant and experienced negotiators. Two focus group discussions (FGDs) took place10 to review and refine an early draft document. Interviews and FGDs focused on contemporary negotiation dynamics, and potential diverging and converging positions, thereby providing a basis for a critical assessment of REDD+ negotiation and refinement for the draft report.11 The intent of this report is not to provide an exhaustive coverage of all views submitted and presented by Parties and observer organizations; instead, the report aims to capture strategic issues expressed by Parties and relevant organizations, as shown in their submissions, specifically on key REDD+ elements which are explained in the next section. This report comprises an introduction and three substantive sections. Section II presents a geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiations, divided into sub-sections that provide an overview of the REDD+ concept and its elements and analyze the dynamics of REDD+ negotiation – examining different and similar views of Parties – based on REDD+ substantive elements. Section III investigates factors that have influenced or may likely contribute to different Parties’ positions in the upcoming UNFCCC conferences and issues that require further exploration. To further help understanding different Parties’ positions, a matrix covering different positions of Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations, is provided as Appendix 1. 9 A complete reference list is also provided in the last section in this report. 10 The first FGD was held on 15 October 2012 and the second was on 19 October 2012. Both FGDs took place in Hotel Santika, Jakarta. 11 The list of the interviewees and FGDs’ participants are provided in Appendix 2.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 4 | P a g e 2. Geopolitical Map of REDD+ negotiation 2.1. REDD+ elements Reducing deforestation and forest degradation, and improving land management are widely seen as critical elements of a strategy to reduce global GHG emissions.12 A 2008 study reported that the costs of reducing global emissions to half of 1990 levels by the year 2050 could be lowered by 25- 50% by 2030 and by 20-40% by 2050, if reduced deforestation and forest degradation as well as afforestation/reforestation options were included in emissions reduction schemes.13 The fundamental concept behind REDD+ is to provide financial incentives to developing countries in order to make their forests more valuable standing than cut down. Incentivizing options for keeping forests intact are expected to provide opportunities to mitigate emissions, because forests have the potential to serve as a net carbon sink, rather than as a significant source of GHG emissions.14 Globally, this “REDD+” is being promoted to provide technical assistance and financial incentives to developing countries aimed at reducing deforestation and forest degradation, and improve forest management. REDD+ is one of the areas where the UNFCCC negotiations have made progress in recent years. It is hoped that the international climate change policy regimes will be able to deliver large-scale emissions reduction in the future. To have an effective and efficient REDD+ scheme, its elements need to be developed and agreed upon, among others, comprising its scope, the establishment of reference levels, and financing and distribution mechanism.15 Based on the draft text under consideration of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention (AWG-LCA) at COP-15, the core elements for implementing REDD+ activities include: scope of activities, guiding principles, safeguards, phases of implementation, means of implementation and measurement, reporting and verification (MRV) of action and support.16 12 Eliasch, J 2008, Climate change: financing global forests, Office of Climate Change UK, London. 13 Ibid. 14 Corbera, E, Estrada, M & Brown, K 2010, ‘Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions’, Climate Change, vol. 100, no.3-4, pp. 355- 388. 15 Parker, C, Mitchell, A, Trivedi, M & Mardas, N 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford. 16 UNFCCC 2011a, Fact Sheet: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries – Approaches to Stimulate Action, UNFCCC, Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 5 | P a g e 2.1.1. Scope The first key element of REDD+ is its scope, referring to activities that are considered eligible for generating emissions reduction under REDD+.17 Based on Decision 2/CP.13 of COP-13 in Bali and Decision 4/CP.15 (COP-15 in Copenhagen), activities18 considered eligible under REDD+ are: (i) reducing emissions from deforestation; (ii) reducing emissions from forest degradation; (iii) conservation of forest carbon stocks (C); (iv) sustainable management of forests (SMF); and (v) enhancement of forest carbon stocks (EFCS) in developing countries. The choice of scope will eventually have an impact on the scale, relative costs and mitigation potential19 (relates to emissions reductions) of a REDD+ mechanism. 2.1.2. Reference level and reference emission level20 The second key element is reference levels, which defines the reference period (i.e. historical or projected) and scale (i.e. sub-national, national and global) against which the activities are measured.21 Reference levels, acting as a point of reference, are required as the basis for quantifying emissions that have been reduced because of the implementation of particular REDD+ policies or activities. Decision 4/CP.15 distinguishes forest reference emission levels (REL) and forest reference levels (RL) and recognizes the need for developing country Parties to establish REL and/or RL.22 17 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 18 UNFCCC 2007, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties, UNFCCC COP-13, Bali; UNFCCC 2009, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties, UNFCCC COP-15, Copenhagen. 19 Parker et al. (2009) explain that reducing emissions from deforestation and degradation (REDD) are both activities that decrease additions of carbon into the atmosphere; enhancement of carbon stocks (the "+" in REDD+), and its broadest sense includes the conservation of carbon stocks, refer to carbon sequestration or removals of carbon from the atmosphere. 20 The reference emission level (REL) is the amount of gross emissions from a geographical area estimated within a reference time period (eqCO2), while the reference level (RL) is the amount of net/gross emissions and removals from a geographical area estimated within a reference time period (eqCO2) (see Klavier 2010 and Papua New Guinea 2009). REL is commonly used for reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation while RL is for conservation of forest carbon stock, sustainable management of forests and enhancement for forest carbon stock (Papua New Guinea 2009). According to the UN-REDD Programme (2011), RL gives amounts of carbon stored in forests over period of time and when it applies to reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, it is called REL. 21 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 22 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2009).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 6 | P a g e Since COP-11, methodological issues, especially to define REL/RL, estimate emissions and removals23 as well as measure emissions reductions, have been a major challenge for REDD+. Decisions at a number of COPs have provided mandates and encouraged Parties to build capacity, provide technical assistance, and transfer scientific knowledge and technology relating to methodological and technical needs of developing countries.24 Decision 4/CP.15, for example, requests developing country Parties, according to their national circumstances and capabilities, to use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon inventory approaches in order to credibly estimate emissions and removals.25 Also, in Decision 1/CP.16, developing country Parties aiming to undertake REDD+ activities are requested to develop, among others, a national forest reference emission level and/or forest reference level.26 Credible estimation of carbon emissions and removals (or carbon accounting) will reduce uncertainties27 and increase the level of confidence in developing and implementing REDD+ further. This carbon accounting system serves as the basis for developing forest monitoring systems, and the overall MRV system, at the national level, in which a sub- national level system is considered as an important part.28 At the upcoming 37th Subsidiary Body for Scientific and Technological Advice (SBSTA-37) session to be held in November this year at COP-18 in Doha, the methodological issues are still prominent on the agenda. These include the continuation of work and negotiations on developing modalities for a national forest monitoring system (NFMS)29 as referred to in Decision 1/CP.1630 , paragraph 71(c) and for MRV on the basis of the annex (attached to the conclusions contained in FCCC/SBSTA/2012/L.9/Rev.1)31 containing elements for a possible draft decision on these matters, scheduled to be adopted at this COP. Another methodological issue to be discussed in this session is the initiation of work and 23 This means estimating and/or quantifying anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes (UNFCCC 2009). The estimation and quantification can be derived from assessing changes in forest cover and associated carbon stocks and GHG emissions, and incremental changes due to SMF, or measuring the reductions in emissions from deforestation and forest degradation, against their reference emissions levels (UNFCCC 2007). 24 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2011a). 25 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2009). 26 Sanz-Sanchez, MJS 2010, ‘Current status and outcomes of REDD negotiations under UNFCCC’, Paper presented in January 2011, UNFCCC. 27 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2009). 28 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2009). 29 See Box 1 for the details of NFMS. 30 UNFCCC 2011b, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancún from 29 November to 10 December 2010: Addendum Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Parties at Its Sixteenth Session – Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties (Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention), UNFCCC COP-16 (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1), Cancún; 31 UNFCCC 2012a, Methodological Guidance for Activities Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries, UNFCCC SBSTA-36 (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/L.9/Rev.1), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 7 | P a g e Box 1. A brief overview of national forest monitoring systems (NFMS) In the previous three years, there have been a series of COP decisions to guide the development of national forest monitoring systems for REDD+. The two documents that provide guidance on national forest monitoring systems are Decision 4/CP.15 (from the 2009 Copenhagen Accords) and Decision 1/CP.16 (the 2010 Cancun Agreements). Decision 4/CP.15 (paragraph 1(d)) provides methodological guidance on REDD+, relating in part to the need to establish robust and transparent NFMS that:  use a combination of remote sensing and ground-based forest carbon inventory approaches for estimating, as appropriate, anthropogenic forest-related greenhouse gas emissions by sources and removals by sinks, forest carbon stocks and forest area changes;  provide estimates that are transparent, consistent, as far as possible accurate, and that reduce uncertainties, taking into account national capabilities and capacities;  are transparent and their results are available and suitable for review as agreed by the Conference of the Parties This guidance indicates that NFMS can be used to: i) estimate emissions and removals from the forestry sector (measurement); ii) report this mitigation performance of REDD+ activities to the UNFCCC through the national communication (reporting); and iii) allow verification of the results by the UNFCCC Secretariat (verification) – i.e. to fulfil the MRV function for REDD+ activities. UNFCCC guidance on this technical element is built upon in Decision 1/CP.16 (paragraph 71(c)), where developing countries aiming to participate in REDD+ are requested to develop: a robust and transparent NFMS for the monitoring and reporting of the [REDD+] activities. Paragraph 77 of Decision 1/CP.16 states – via a footnote – the implementation of results-based REDD+ actions requires national monitoring systems. Based on Decisions 4/CP.15 and 1/CP.16, countries are required to develop a NFMS to serve the dual functions of monitoring and MRV. Nevertheless, while following UNFCCC decisions, NFMS may look different in every country. National circumstances and existing capacities need to be fully considered and built upon in order to allow countries to ultimately achieve the mechanism’s full mitigation potential. Source: UN-REDD Programme 2012a, ‘Deciphering UNFCCC Decisions on national forest monitoring systems for REDD+’, UN-REDD Programme, Bangkok. progress being made on developing guidance for technical assessment of the proposed REL and/or RL. 2.1.3. Financing The third core element of REDD+ is financing. This element is the backbone of REDD+ because it addresses the sources of funding that will be used to incentivize emissions reductions under REDD+.32 At the international level, options for financing have been identified including a fund (such as from Official Development Assistance or ODA), a market-based mechanism (through a variety of mechanism such as from an auction process of Assigned Amount Units or AAUs) and direct-market REDD+ credits.33 In the last in-session workshop on financing options for the full implementation of results-based actions relating to REDD+, including modalities and procedures for financing these results-based actions, held in Bangkok in August 2012, Parties to the UNFCCC discussed their proposals on three important thematic areas. These are:34 32 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 33 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 34 UNFCCC 2012b, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA): Informal Summary of the In-session Workshop on Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results-based Actions relating to REDD+, including Modalities and Procedures for Financing These Results-based Actions, Bangkok.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 8 | P a g e (i) financing options, sources and related enabling considerations; (ii) the role of the private sector in REDD+ investments; and (iii) a framework for financing the full implementation of results-based REDD+ actions: key elements and issues to be addressed, including policy aspects, governance and institutional arrangements, methodological aspects, conditions for payments, and addressing multiple benefits, drivers of deforestation and safeguards. The three thematic areas on financing are likely to be high on the agenda of many Parties at COP-18. With regard to the third financing area, the negotiations appear to closely correlate with the agenda of the upcoming SBSTA-37 in Doha. In SBSTA-37 session, in addition to discussing methodological issues (i.e. modalities for a NFMS and guidance on REL/RL), the session will focus on drivers of deforestation and forest degradation – and how to address these – including consideration of social and economic aspects of the drivers, and touch on the REDD+ safeguards. 2.1.4. Benefit distribution mechanism35 The next element of REDD+ is distribution of benefits. A distribution mechanism is an equally important element of REDD+ since it defines which benefits in the form of financial incentives might be distributed or allocated to countries and/or entities who are contributing to GHG emissions reductions under REDD+.36 To be effective, positive incentives under REDD+ need to be channeled to countries through a system that embraces the following principles: timeliness, adequacy, flexibility, equity, efficiency and segregation.37 An equitable and just distribution mechanism, in particular, would likely encourage key actors involved in the forestry and land-use sectors to be more involved in and/or supportive to REDD+. If this happens, it can ensure the smooth implementation of REDD+ on the ground. 35 The element of distribution mechanism has been recognized as one of REDD+ important agenda since COP- 13 (for further detail discussion on distribution mechanism, see Parker et al. 2009). Parker et al. (2009) argued that, based on Parties’ submissions, while the element of REDD+ financing mostly focuses on where the money comes from to support REDD+ activities, the issue of equal importance is how benefits in the form of financial incentives might be distributed or allocated to different countries and entities that will develop and implement REDD+. 36 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 37 UN-REDD Programme 2012b, ‘Lessons-learned (Asia Pacific): implementation framework – benefit distribution’, UN-REDD Programme, Bangkok.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 9 | P a g e 2.1.5. Guiding principles and safeguards Other key elements on the agenda of REDD+ negotiations are guiding principles and safeguards. These include country-driven actions consistent with conservation of natural forests and biodiversity, and involvement of indigenous peoples.38 Guiding principles and safeguards are required to ensure that REDD+, when implemented, not only will achieve emissions reduction but will also avoid further decline in biodiversity, promote human well-being and support low-carbon development.39 The Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) of the World Bank and the UN-REDD Programme in a 2011 report argue that the term “safeguards” refers to measures, such as policies or procedures, designed to prevent undesirable outcomes of actions or programmes.40 In the case of REDD+, the undesirable outcomes can be understood as social and/or environmental damage or harm.41 In the last informal additional session42 of the AWG-LCA in Bangkok in September 2012, Parties referred to the following REDD+ principles, guidance and provisions as set out in Decision 1/CP.16 and its Appendix I and decision 2/CP.17: (a) Contribute to the achievement of the objective set out in Article 2 of the Convention; (b) Contribute to the fulfillment of the commitments set out in Article 4,paragraph 3, of the Convention; (c) Be country-driven and be considered options available to Parties; (d) Be consistent with the objective of environmental integrity and take into account the multiple functions of forests and other ecosystems; (e) Be undertaken in accordance with national development priorities, objectives and circumstances and capabilities and should respect sovereignty; (f) Be consistent with Parties’ national sustainable development needs and goals; 38 Sanchez, MJS 2010, ‘REDD-plus from the UNFCCC‘s perspective: status of play, needs and expectations’, Paper presented at Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting of the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forest), Nairobi, 13- 17 September. 39 WWF, ‘Guiding principles of REDD+’, CARE-International, Greenpeace and WWF (16 June 2011), at <http://wwf.panda.org/what_we_do/footprint/climate_carbon_energy/forest_climate/publications/?200666/ Guiding-Principles-for-REDD>. 40 Moss, N & Nussbaum, R 2011, A Review of Three REDD+ Safeguard Initiatives, FCPF and UN-REDD Programme, Washington, DC. 41 Ibid. 42 UNFCCC 2012c, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention: Informal Additional Session on Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries (Agenda item 3(b)(iii)) – Informal note, Bangkok.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 10 | P a g e (g) Be implemented in the context of sustainable development and reducing poverty, while responding to climate change; (h) Be consistent with the adaptation needs of the country; (i) Be supported by adequate and predictable financial and technology support, including support for capacity-building; (j) Be results-based; and (k) Promote sustainable management of forests. The discussion of the above guiding principles with additional principles is likely to continue duringCOP-18 in Doha. With regard to safeguards of REDD+, Parties at COP-16 in Cancún have agreed that the following safeguards should be promoted and supported43 : (a) Actions complement or are consistent with the objectives of national forest programmes and relevant international conventions and agreements; (b) Transparent and effective national forest governance structures, taking into account national legislation and sovereignty; (c) Respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and members of local communities, by taking into account relevant international obligations, national circumstances and laws, and noting that the United Nations General Assembly has adopted the United Nations Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples; (d) The full and effective participation of relevant stakeholders, in particular, indigenous peoples and local communities, in actions under REDD+; (e) That actions are consistent with the conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, ensuring that actions under REDD+ are not used for the conversion of natural forests, but are instead used to incentivize the protection and conservation of natural forests and their ecosystem services, and to enhance other social and environmental benefits; (f) Actions to address the risks of reversals; and (g) Actions to reduce displacement of emission. Some aspects of guiding principles and safeguards will continue to be discussed as enabling conditions of REDD+ in COP-18. These include, among others, strengthened policy, legislative and institutional frameworks, and transparent and effective governance.44 Parties at COP-18 are also 43 Kant, P, Chaliha, S & Shuirong, W 2011, ‘The REDD safeguards in Cancun’, Institute of Green Economy Working Paper, New Delhi. 44 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012c).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 11 | P a g e likely to further negotiate the environmental and social safeguards of REDD+. As agreed at the SBSTA-36 session in Bonn (Germany), Parties will initiate and/or continue consideration of safeguards elements at the SBSTA-37 session in Doha.45 As mentioned in sub-section (2.1), understanding the core elements of REDD+ would serve as the basis for understanding the complexity of REDD+ negotiations. This understanding would further help negotiators to reach possible consensus at COP-18 and future negotiation sessions. To assist negotiators, the following sub-sections structure the discussions by reviewing different Parties’ or group of countries’ positions based on the core elements. The purpose of capturing views is to present the broad range of views held by Parties, their general and/or shared understanding of some issues and elements, as well as their different views on other elements. 2.2. Parties’ positions on REDD+ toward COP-18 in Doha Based on the review of official documents (submissions) and other relevant material as well as interviews and FGDs, Parties or group of countries share similar positions in some areas. For example, the majority of Parties, prior to COP-18, have shown their support for the concept of developing and implementing the full scope of REDD+. Divergence of views among Parties remains mainly on details of REDD+ elements. These include a number of specific issues, among others, related to RL/REL, MRV, safeguards, national/sub-national implementation46 , financing options and distribution mechanisms. As reflected in their official submissions and views in a number of negotiating sessions, it appears that after COP-17 in Durban most Parties have had firm positions reflecting on their interests and possible gains obtained in the subsequent international negotiations. These Parties are likely to retain their positions at COP-18 although strong influences from other Parties and group of countries (e.g. the European Union [EU], Group of 77+China [G77+China]) can still lead to some trade-offs – and changes in Parties’ positions – and breakthroughs in Doha. Other political and economic factors (at global, regional and national levels) may also influence Parties’ positions. The discussion on these factors is presented in Section 3. 45 Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) 2012, ‘IGES briefing note on REDD+ negotiation: UN Climate Change Conference, Bonn, Germany, 14 to 25 May 2012 ’, IGES, Hayama. 46 See Sub-section 2.2.6 for further discussion on national and sub-national implementation of REDD+.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 12 | P a g e The most visible divergence of views is between Annex I and Non-Annex I Parties. It is clear that Annex I Parties would like to ensure that Non-Annex I Parties maintain their pledges in developing and implementing REDD+. At the same time, Non-Annex I Parties urge Annex I Parties to increase their ambition (increasing their emissions reduction targets), so that there would be an assumed increase in REDD+ demand.47 In addition, especially in the context of REDD+ negotiations, divergence of interest on specific issues occurs widely among Parties within Annex I and Non-Annex I. Some Annex I Parties (e.g. Australia and the United States of America (USA)) have different perspectives on the establishment of RL and REL, and targets for REDD+ financing.48 A similar situation happens with Non-Annex I Parties. Bolivia, Brazil, China and Indonesia, for example, have different views on financing options and safeguards.49 If consensual decisions are to be achieved at COP-18, such convergence and divergence among Parties need to be taken into account and cautiously analyzed by negotiators. The following sub- sections will elaborate on positions for the following groupings:50  Key Parties (e.g. Australia, Bolivia, Brazil, Canada, China, Colombia, India, Indonesia, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Panama, and the USA);  Groups of countries – both representing traditional negotiating groups and groups having strong interest on REDD+ (e.g. Association of Southeast Asian Nations [ASEAN], Association of Small Island States[AOSIS], the Least Developed Countries [LDCs], Congo Basin Countries/Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC), Coalition for Rainforest Nations [CfRN], EU [including the United Kingdom], the Environmental Integrity Group and the Umbrella Group of developed countries [Australia, Japan, NZ]); and  Other key organizations with strong interests on REDD+ (e.g. the World Bank, environmental NGOs, etc.). 2.2.1. Parties’ positions on REDD+ scope In general, all Parties and groups of countries are supportive of the REDD+ scope as stipulated in the BAP and Decision 1/CP.16 paragraph 70.51 The EU, for instance, stated that maintaining the REDD+ 47 Non-Annex I Parties argue that higher emission reduction ambitions by developed countries and price of carbon are necessary to incentivize scaling up of financing and investments in results-based REDD-plus actions (UNFCCC 2012c) 48 UNFCCC 2012d, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. 49 Ibid. 50 Appendix 1 provides the complete matrix of Parties’ positions.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 13 | P a g e scope will ensure the broad participation of developing countries, will result in a wide coverage of forests and will avoid international carbon emissions displacement.52 Most Parties, as voiced by India and Indonesia, emphasized that the scope of activities mentioned in decision 1/CP.16, are to be undertaken on a voluntary basis by developing countries.53 The differences of views are related to whether REDD activities (consisting of only reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation) are prioritized over the other three activities that are part of REDD+. The COMIFAC countries, for instance, shared their concern that a future REDD+ mechanism may only accommodate results in terms of emission reductions (i.e. REDD activities only).54 They noted that many countries in Central African have had low historical deforestation rates. Hence, the full deployment phase of REDD+ must fully recognize past and present sustainable forest management and conservation efforts. This view is supported by CfRN and Guyana.55 The debate on these issues may continue at COP-18 but will likely not create significant challenges, as fundamentally all Parties and groups of countries have agreed to the scope of activities mentioned in decision 1/CP.16. One issue that may be brought up by some Parties is whether a future REDD+ mechanism can ensure the equal recognition of activities under REDD+ (as argued by COMIFAC countries) and whether these activities can be credibly measured, reported and verified so that emissions reduction and carbon stocks maintenance and enhancement can be proven as real (e.g. as argued by Denmark and the EU, Brazil, Japan and Indonesia).56 2.2.2. Parties’ positions on REDD+ and nationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) As stipulated in the BAP, REDD+ is part of NAMAs. The BAP calls for “*e+nhanced national/international action on mitigation of climate change” that includes “*n+ationally appropriate mitigation actions (NAMAs) by developing country Parties in the context of sustainable development, supported and enabled by technology, financing and capacity-building, in a 51 REDD+scope covers reducing emissions from deforestation, reducing emissions from forest degradation, conservation of forest carbon stocks, sustainable management of forest and enhancement of forest carbon stocks. 52 Op. cit.UNFCCC (2012d). 53 Ibid. 54 Ibid. 55 Ibid. 56 Ibid(Further notes: These countries argued that anthropogenic forest related emissions and removals are required to be fully measured, reported and independently verified).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 14 | P a g e measurable, reportable and verifiable manner”.57 According to the 2009 report published by Climate Focus, there are linkages, synergies and overlaps58 between REDD+ and NAMAs including in the following:  The basis for measuring (capturing different and similar concepts for expressing baselines and references scenarios).  Monitoring, reporting and verification (capturing the what, who, and how of MRV).  Policies and measures (capturing the broader context in which NAMAs are to be understood).  Funding (capturing the funding options being discussed in the negotiations).  Implementation (capturing the implementation level and scale). The EU, when negotiating REDD+ and NAMAs, emphasized this issue and listed a description of the contribution of REDD+ activities to NAMAs as one of the participation requirements of Parties in REDD+ activities.59 The majority of developing country Parties, however, are concerned about the attempts of several developed country Parties to closely link REDD+ and NAMAs. This is mainly due to:  the ambiguities and disagreements between Parties in relation to the implementation of NAMAs;  the positive progress of REDD+ negotiations; thus leading to  concerns that linking both REDD+ and NAMAs will further delay the implementation of REDD+. Papua New Guinea and Paraguay, for instance, argued that combining REDD+ and NAMAs will only dilute focus on REDD+.60 Since 2009, the Africa group argued that NAMAs can only be accepted upon the condition that technology transfer, finance, and capacity building are provided by developed country Parties and these provisions are subject to MRV.61 Not all developing country Parties, however, have similar ideas on the linkage between REDD+ and NAMAs. Guyana sees the potential linkage between REDD+ and NAMAs as long as the NFMS and the reporting of results-based actions are consistent with the MRV guidance agreed for NAMAs.62 Costa Rica on the other hand says that the linkage between REDD+ and NAMAs can be established as long 57 Climate Focus 2009, Developing Effective National REDD Programme: REDD and NAMAs, Climate Focus for WWF, Surrey. 58 Ibid. 59 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d). 60 Op. cit. Climate Focus (2009). 61 Ibid. 62 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012b).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 15 | P a g e as the reduction of emission levels and enhancement of forest carbon stock as result of NAMAs can be used to generate REDD+ credits, independent of funding sources.63 In the recent 2012 UNFCCC workshop64 in Bangkok, the G77+China group further argued that:  at the global level, developing country Parties’ contributions in reducing emissions are bigger than those done by developed countries;  there is a crucial need to use the Kyoto Protocol as the reference for comparability of efforts among developed country Parties’ emissions reduction targets as well as for increasing the level of ambition of developed country Parties; and  clarity is needed in Land Use, Land Use Change and Forestry (LULUCF)’s accounting rule so that domestic emissions reduction of developed country Parties is real and credible. In general, most developing country Parties appear to prefer REDD+ and NAMAs to be negotiated separately while developed country Parties prefer REDD+ to be incorporated within NAMAs (for further discussion on REDD+ and NAMAs, see Climate Focus (2009)65 ) . At COP-18, this divergence of views may likely re-emerge and present substantive negotiation challenges for both groups. 2.2.3. Parties’ positions on REDD+, reference levels (RLs) and/or reference emission levels (RELs) Since the discussion on methodological issues commenced, particularly on reference levels (RLs) and reference emission levels (RELs), Parties have different views on approaching this REDD+ element. Three options have been discussed throughout the years, i.e. ‘historical baseline’, ‘historical adjusted baseline’, and ‘projected baseline’.66 Brazil and India seem to favour the ‘historical baseline’ approach. The ‘historical adjusted baseline’ is favoured by the AOSIS States, Canada, Colombia, COMIFAC, the Coalition of Rainforest Nations, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, Norway, Panama, the EU, and the USA. Interestingly, the ‘projected baseline’ option is only chosen by Australia. Indonesia has opted for two options namely ‘historical baseline’ and ‘projected baseline’. Parties, groups of countries and relevant organizations also have different views67 on the level of formulation and implementation of RLs/RELs. These include: 63 Ibid. 64 Workshop on financing options for the full implementation of results-based actions relating to REDD-plus, including modalities and procedures for financing these results-based actions, held on 30 August 2012 in Bangkok. 65 Op. cit. Climate Focus (2009). 66 Op. cit. Parker et al. (2009). 67 See Andrasko & Koirala (2011), Parker et al. (2009) and UNFCCC (2012d) for further discussions on Parties’ different views on RLs/RELs.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 16 | P a g e  those supporting national and/or sub-national RLs/RELs (taking into account national circumstances): e.g. ASEAN, Brazil, Canada, Colombia, G77, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, Greenpeace;  those supporting the notion that global RLs/RELs should be incorporated in REDD+: e.g. the UK and the EU;  those supporting the notion that global RLs/RELs should not be incorporated in REDD+ but in a larger shared vision: e.g. Africa group, India, Indonesia; and  those supporting the notion that RL/RELs need to be measured, reported and verified (national and/or global level, reviewed by independent reviewers): Brazil, Colombia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, UK, EU, Greenpeace, IUCN, TNC, WWF.68 The discussion on the initiation of work and progress being made on developing guidance for technical assessment of the proposed RELs and/or RLs will continue at COP-18, especially since the discussion on this item will also relate to the negotiations on other REDD+ elements including financing.69 In addition, with regard to the negotiation of REDD+ methodological issues at COP-18 under SBSTA- 37, emphasis will be on the continuation of work and negotiations on developing modalities for a national forest monitoring system (NFMS)70 and MRV. Elements for a possible draft decision on these matters have been prepared and placed as an annex in the FCCC/SBSTA/2012/L.9/Rev.1 document.71 Parties have different views72 on guidance on NFMS, arguing that this system, among others:  should build upon existing systems (e.g. supported by Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, Indonesia) and combine remote sensing and ground-based inventory (e.g. Ghana, India, Indonesia);  should be practical, simple and implementable (e.g. the LDCs);  should be flexible (e.g. the LDCs, India);  should be subject to available funding and country capacities (e.g. the LDCs, Ghana);  should be consistent with guidance on MRV (e.g. Ghana); 68 Most developing country Parties prefer RLs/RELs being measured, reported and verified at the national level – contrary to developed country Parties’ positions which prefer MRV at the global level, and conducted by an independent reviewer. 69 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d). 70 See Box 1 for brief discussion on NFMS. 71 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012a). 72 UNFCCC 2012e, SBSTA-36: Views on Issues Identified in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 72 and Appendix II – Submissions from Parties, UNFCCC (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/MISC.1), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 17 | P a g e  needs to be capable of providing estimates of anthropogenic forest-related GHG emissions by sources and removals by sinks through the monitoring of forest carbon stocks and forest area changes (e.g. Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey);  should provide unbiased estimates that are transparent, documented, consistent over time, complete, comparable, assessed for uncertainties, subject to quality control and assurance and suitable for review (e.g. Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, the LDCs, India, Indonesia, Japan); and  should be efficient to combine with the system to provide information on how safeguards are addressed and respected (e.g. Croatia, Macedonia, Serbia and Turkey, the LDCs, Japan). At COP-18, negotiators may focus on this issue and spend a substantial amount of time analyzing elements for a possible draft decision on developing modalities for a NFMS and MRV, based on Parties’ submissions and recent discussions in Bangkok. 2.2.4. Parties’ positions on REDD+ safeguards The REDD+ safeguards – including on biodiversity and indigenous peoples – are perceived as an important element that will ensure the smooth implementation of REDD+ on the ground. In general, Parties agree that these safeguards are inseparable from REDD+ but Parties do have divergent views. These include:  Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that are inclined to include the ‘safeguards for biodiversity and indigenous peoples’ (e.g. Canada and Indonesia [taking into account national circumstances], AOSIS, Australia, India, Panama, the UK, the EU, the USA, Greenpeace, IUCN, Rainforest Foundation, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of the Earth, TNC, World Bank, WWF);  Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that support environmental safeguards for biodiversity: (e.g. The Umbrella Group);  Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that support social safeguards for indigenous peoples and local communities: (e.g. G77 + China, Norway);  Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that support an MRV system for safeguards: (e.g. Australia, the UK, the EU); and  Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that oppose an MRV system for safeguards: (e.g. Brazil, China, Malaysia). Some Parties or groups of countries do not have specific positions on safeguards, leaving the situation a bit unclear.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 18 | P a g e At COP-18, other aspects of safeguards will be discussed as important enabling conditions of REDD+ (already discussed and formulated as part of elements for Doha decision). These include, in particular, the aspect of transparent and effective governance.73 Some Parties suggested that this safeguard is needed to attract the involvement of the private sector. Strong implementation of safeguards is clearly viewed as an important enabling condition for private sector participation.74 Many Non-Annex I country Parties, however, will only discuss the “governance” aspect as part of a safeguard mechanism based on the following three factors:  national circumstances;  sovereignty; and  national legislation. Furthermore, Malaysia and Mozambique, with regard to the implementation of safeguards, proposed that this can only be undertaken if public international funding is provided.75 2.2.5. Parties’ positions on REDD+ financing REDD+ financing is likely to be the most debated and negotiated issue during COP-18. The concept of REDD+ foresees incentives as the key tool to mitigate and reduce emissions in the forestry and land- use sectors of developing nations, if they can prove that reduction of emissions resulting from REDD+ is real. This means that the incentive can only be claimed based on results of developing country Parties’ activities. One potential stumbling block in the negotiations is that Annex I country Parties may likely delay negotiations on increasing of their emissions reduction targets. In Bangkok76 , and as part of the discussions resulting in draft elements for Doha decision, developing country Parties argued that higher emission reduction ambitions by developed countries and a higher price of carbon are necessary to incentivize scaling up of financing and investments in results-based REDD+ actions. Without higher ambitions, demand for carbon credits may not be significant. Brazil, Guyana and Indonesia raised this concern. From developed country Parties, only Norway shared a similar view that continued, predictable and scaled-up funding for 2013–2015 must be ensured if the world is to 73 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012c). 74 Ibid. 75 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d). 76 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012c).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 19 | P a g e Box2. Different financing options for REDD+ Finance for REDD+ can be grouped into the followings:  A non-market based mechanism (e.g. a voluntary fund) could operate at the national (i.e. uni- or multilateral) or international level and come from official development assistance (ODA) and other public and private sources  A market-based mechanism (known also as a direct market mechanism for REDD credits) would be traded alongside existing certified (or verified) emissions reductions (CERs), and could be used by companies in Annex I countries to meet emissions targets in their national cap-and-trade systems;  A hybrid mechanism, known as market-linked mechanism, would generate finances through either an auction process or by establishing a dual-market in which REDD credits are linked to but are not fungible with existing CERs. Norway’s proposal to auction Assigned Amount Units (AAUs) is an example of a market-linked mechanism.  A hybrid mechanism, known as phase approach, allows countries to prepare for REDD implementation through capacity building. It accounts for the diverse circumstances of different REDD countries and makes it possible for REDD to make use of both fund-based and market-based financial recourses. The phased approach allows countries to adapt strategies to their national circumstances and opportunities and develop portfolios for funding. Another adjustment to a phase approach is known as basket approach, which would combine different sources of financing for different aspects of REDD in different time periods. Source: Parker et al. (2009), Simula (2009) and The Forest Dialogue (2010). achieve the two degree Celsius goal77 and the goal to slow, halt and reverse forest cover and carbon loss in developing countries.78 Furthermore, Norway emphasized that it is more important to send a credible global signal in the near future (2016-2020 period) and beyond that there will be substantial and predictable demand for REDD+.79 With regard to COP-18 in Doha, there will be negotiations on at least the following three thematic areas:  Financing options, sources and related enabling considerations, There are clearly different views on financing options, such as ‘market based’, ‘market-linked’, ‘non-market based’ (including voluntary fund), ‘hybrid’, ‘phased approach’ and ‘basket approach’. Some Parties and groups of countries favour the ‘market-linked’ approach or in combination with other approaches or with some conditions. Details of Parties, groups of countries and relevant organizations’ positions on financing options are those:  supporting a phased approach (e.g. ASEAN, AOSIS, African group, Indonesia, Norway, IUCN, Rainforest Foundation, WWF);  supporting a market-based approach (e.g. Colombia, African group, Mexico, Umbrella Group)  supporting a voluntary fund-based approach (e.g. G77 + China, IUCN);  in favour of results-based payment (e.g. Australia, China, India, Malaysia, Umbrella Group, Brazil, Colombia); 77 At COP-17, Parties have agreed on the future of the international community response to climate change by recognizing the urgent need to raise the collective level of ambition to reduce GHG emissions to keep the average global temperature rise below two degrees Celsius (UNFCCC 2011h). 78 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d). 79 Ibid.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 20 | P a g e  supporting a fast-start finance system for REDD+ (e.g. Australia, Canada, Japan, New Zealand, UK, EU, USA, Rainforest Foundation);  supporting a REDD+ window in the Green Climate Fund (e.g. Brazil, China, CfRN, India, Indonesia, WWF);  supporting a mix of funding sources (public-private, market-non market, innovative/new financial mechanisms) (e.g. Australia, China, CfRN, India, Indonesia, Japan, UK, EU, Greenpeace, Rainforest Foundation, World Bank, WWF); and  supporting the establishment of an international registry for carbon units and credits (e.g. Mexico, Norway, TNC, WWF).80 Positions on financing options do not only differ significantly but may change at COP-18. While Papua New Guinea promotes a new market mechanism, Brazil came up with a firm position, although allowed room for negotiation. Brazil’s view is that market-based approaches should exclude the use of offset mechanisms, and that the debate should be broadened, allowing for due consideration of other options. These could include new ideas on appropriate market- based mechanisms developed by the COP, which would not be based on the expected generation of offsets.81 Bolivia proposed a joint adaptation and mitigation strategy. It indicated that potential sources of financial support for the joint mitigation and adaptation mechanism and SMF should be through new, additional and reliable funding from a variety of sources, public and private (outside the markets), including external public funds, ethical private funds and business funding.82 The position is unique because it tries to combine the negotiations which are currently conducted in a separate manner – i.e. the discussions on adaptation fund and on financial support for mitigation. Regarding sources and financing options for REDD+, developing country Parties overall agree that funds for REDD+ should be monitored, reported and verified. The CfRN, for instance, indicated that market-based sources for REDD+ should also be monitored, reported and 80 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d) and see several documents reporting the outcome of Bangkok negotiations. 81 UNFCCC 2012f, AWG-LCA: Views on modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and considering activities related to decision1/CP.16, paragraphs 68–70 and 72 – Submissions from Parties, UNFCCC (FCCC/AWGLCA/2012/MISC.3/Add.1), Bonn. 82 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 21 | P a g e verified.83 Indonesia stated that financing for the full implementation of results-based REDD+ actions needs to take into account MRV of support.84 With regard to the various positions, negotiators should also understand the complete picture of financing options and the implications of different positions, including the support and benefits which will be attained. The idea on the linkage between REDD+ and the Green Climate Fund (GCF), for instance, requires an in-depth analysis and appropriate response, taking into account both its potential risks and impacts. CfRN and Guyana are in favour of this REDD+ window in the GCF. Numerous other Parties expressed their views on the importance of channelling resources through the financial mechanism under the Convention and identified a prominent role for the GCF.85  The role of the private sector in REDD+ Many Parties view the contributions by, and participation and involvement of, the private sector necessary in REDD+. The Philippines and Switzerland, for instance, have mentioned that more resources will be needed for REDD+ than the amount pledged to date in public finance.86 Different views regarding the involvement and role of the private sector remain and include87 :  engaging in results-based actions (e.g. Indonesia, Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras Mexico, the World Bank);  addressing drivers of deforestation and forest degradation (e.g. Indonesia, Costa Rica, European Union, Honduras, Malaysia, Mozambique, Norway, the EU);  be coordinated under the GCF (e.g. Colombia, Costa Rica, Honduras and Mexico);  adhering to strong safeguards mechanism (e.g. CMIA); and  be also involved in forest and biodiversity conservation (e.g. CMIA).  A framework for financing the full implementation of results-based REDD+ actions: key elements and issues to be addressed, including policy aspects, governance and institutional arrangements, methodological aspects, conditions for payments, and addressing multiple benefits, drivers of deforestation and safeguards. 83 Ibid. 84 Ibid. 85 Ibid. 86 Ibid. 87 Ibid.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 22 | P a g e Developing country Parties often argue that the preparation phase toward full implementation of the results-based approach of REDD+ requires substantive inputs such as technology, skilled capacity, improved systems and credible methodologies and funding. Most developing countries currently need capacity strengthening to develop their REDD+ mechanisms and move faster toward the implementation phase. Most developing countries are also striving to create enabling conditions that will ensure smooth full implementation of REDD+.88 The different views of developing country and other Parties include:89 - ‘Guiding principles’: the majority of Parties propose transparency, inclusiveness, equity, accountability, effectiveness and efficiency, predictability and common but differentiated responsibilities as part of the guiding principles. Developing country Parties particularly emphasize the voluntary nature of REDD+ activities and China argues that any modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions should strictly follow the relevant Articles of the Convention, in particular Article 4, paragraphs 3 and 7, and be conducive to strengthening the multilateral finance mechanism under the Convention. - ‘Policy elements’: Several Parties emphasized the importance of and need for scaling up new, additional and predictable financing for REDD+ activities when considering modalities and procedures for financing its full implementation. In addition, Parties highlighted the importance of addressing the drivers of deforestation and forest degradation and recognizing co-benefits as part of considering modalities and procedures for REDD+ financing. - ‘Governance and institutional arrangements’: Several Parties described the needs for guidance on institutional arrangements, either developed by national governments, the COP or through an international process, that relates to the governance of results-based payments and disbursement of such payments. In particular, Parties argued about functions of the institutions that may be required to govern REDD+ financing. Several Parties identified several types of bodies that could be established under the guidance of the COP to guide and coordinate the allocation of financing for REDD+ actions and activities. Further elaboration of all proposals may likely continue at COP-18. 88 See the 2011 UNEP report entitled Enabling Conditions: Supporting the Transition to a Global Green Economy that explains the challenges and opportunities faced by developing countries to create enabling conditions, among others, to develop and implement REDD+ smoothly. 89 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012b).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 23 | P a g e 2.2.6. Parties’ positions on the level of REDD+ implementation The levels of implementation90 of REDD+ can be categorized into ‘national’ and ‘sub-national’. Another proposal combines the two and is known as a national approach with sub-national implementation. There was also a proposal to have the level of implementation at the global level. In summary, Parties and groups of countries that choose the ‘national level’ are: Brazil, Canada, and the Coalition of Rainforest Nations. Parties, group of countries and relevant organizations that support national and sub-national level implementation: ASEAN, Australia, China, Africa group, Colombia, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Norway, UK, EU, USA, Greenpeace, IUCN, TNC, WWF. Indonesia is an example of a country in favour of a nested approach, which is national approach with sub-national implementation. In recent REDD+ negotiations91 , the discussion on national and sub-national implementation has closely followed the discussion on MRV systems. Many Parties argue that at the national level, the MRV system should address avoiding displacement and increasing additionality in a climate change mitigation context. At the sub-national level, such a robust MRV system needs to be developed and integrated into the National Carbon Accounting System. 90 According to Angelsen et al. (2008), the geographical level or scale of REDD implementation, accounting and incentive mechanisms are: direct support to projects (sub-national levels), direct support to countries (national level), or a hybrid (‘nested’) approach combining the two. The details of these three approaches are as follows:  A sub-national or project approach allows for early involvement and wide participation and is attractive to private investors. However, it may suer from leakage (increased emissions outside project boundaries) and cannot address the broader forces driving deforestation and forest degradation.  A national approach allows pursuit of a broad set of policies, addresses domestic leakage and creates country ownership. In the short to medium term, however, a national approach will be feasible for only a few countries, as it does not work well in situations susceptible to governance failures; it may also be less likely to mobilise private investment or local government involvement.  A nested approach is the most flexible mechanism. It allows countries to start REDD efforts through sub- national activities and gradually move to a national approach, or for the coexistence of the two approaches in a system where REDD credits are generated by projects and governments, thus maximising the potential of both approaches. However, the nested approach presents the challenge of harmonisation between the two levels. 91 Op. cit. UNFCCC (2012d).
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 24 | P a g e 3. Additional considerations 3.1. Potential factors to influence REDD+ negotiations Many global, national and/or local factors may influence REDD+ negotiations. For example, the global economic crisis might affect discussions on REDD+ financing. The crisis has made it more difficult to obtain financial support for development activities and traditional forms of ODA are under threat since national economies are contracting on a large scale. ODA faces increased budgetary pressure and many commodity prices, private investment and remittances have declined.92 There is an urgent need to create innovative financing in the period of economic crisis.93 Based on the current global economic situation, REDD+ negotiations on financing options and sources are likely to be affected. Developed country Parties may moderate earlier pledges for financial support. During COP-18, developing country parties, on the other hand, may push for greater commitments from developed country Parties. Bilateral agreements (e.g. support from Government of Norway to Indonesia and Brazil) and other multilateral platforms (e.g. G20 meetings, other UN conferences such as the COPs of the UN Convention on Biological Diversity or UN Forest Forum) appear to have influenced discussions inside the UNFCCC on REDD+. When negotiating safeguards on indigenous people, for instance, some Parties and observers often reminded other Parties of discussions in other UN fora and the relevant text in the UN Declaration Declaration on the Rights of Indigenous Peoples.94 At the national level, factors that may influence positions – especially in developing countries – include weaknesses in skilled capacity, technology, credible systems and methodologies. These challenges may push developing country Parties to be cautious in advancing the REDD+ agenda. Without these factors, it is challenging for most developing countries to get ready for REDD+ and advance to the implementation phase. 92 UN 2009, Innovative Financing for Development: the I-8 Group Leading Innovative Financing for Equity (L.I.F.E), UN, New York. 93 Ibid. 94 International Indigenous People Forum on Climate Change 2011, ‘Analysis of Cancun LAC text’, Asian Indigenous People CCMIN, accessed from <http://ccmin.aippnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id=9&Itemid=34>.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 25 | P a g e Positions are dynamic and changes often depend or are influenced by positions of ‘allies’ or ‘oppositions’. With regard to the dynamics of REDD+ negotiations over the past years, there are, for instance, no ‘true’ allies and oppositions since countries move in dynamic and fluid ways. The ability to read the big picture – overall negotiation situation – and to analyze any possibilities and challenges ahead are imperative. Further work in strengthening allies, including at regional level and bilaterally (e.g. the cases of Norway and Brazil as well as Norway and Indonesia) may become more and more prominent prior to and/or during negotiations. 3.2. Issues requiring further exploration As elaborated in previous sections, negotiations on REDD+ are complex and challenging. Financing options require further exploration. There are examples of convergence of views. Most Parties, for instance, agree to support a phased approach to REDD+ financing (with developed country Parties committing themselves to a fast-start finance for REDD+ readiness activities). Most parties also acknowledge the importance of diversifying sources of funding through a mixed approach (market- non market, public-private, innovative finance mechanisms). Developing country Parties continue to voice their hopes that developed country Parties commit to long-term financing. They also hope, for example, that negotiations can result in the opening of a ‘REDD+ window’ within the Green Climate Fund. At COP-18, aspects of negotiations that are likely to be complex and tricky are on MRV and safeguards as many Parties will come with their own positions and ideas on those two points. Despite most Parties acknowledging and/or supporting the importance of safeguards and RL/RELs within REDD+, divergence of views persist – for instance, on whether both should be measured, reported and verified. Most developing country Parties prefer them being measured, reported and verified at the national level – contrary to developed country Parties’ positions which prefer MRV at the global level, and conducted by an independent reviewer.95 On the specific issue of the future of REDD+ (post-2012), the concern is whether the REDD+ mechanism will still be prominent within the tracks AWG–LCA or Ad-Hoc Working Group on the Durban Platform for Enhanced Action (AWG-ADP-1 or ADP-1). Fine-tuning these different tracks at COP-18 offers new and different challenges to negotiators. 95 See the discussion on MRV on RLs/REL in Sub-section 2.2.3.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 26 | P a g e References Andrasko, K & Koirala, R 2011, ‘REDD+ reference levels: insights from FCPF country early proposals’, Paper presented at FCPF-Winrock International Workshop in November 2011, World Bank, Washington, DC, accessed from <http://www.forestcarbonpartnership.org/fcp/sites/forestcarbonpartnership.org/files/Docum ents/PDF/Nov2011/Refer%20Level%20overview%20for%20FCPF- Winrock%20workshop%20Andrasko%20%2011%209%202011.pdf>. Angelsen, A, Streck, C, Peskett, L, Brown, J &Luttrell, C 2008, ‘What is the right scale for REDD? The implications of national, subnational and nested approaches’, CIFOR Info Brief, accessed from <http://62.225.2.55/files/methods_science/redd/application/pdf/what_is_the_right_scale_fo r_redd.pdf>. Angelsen, A, Brown, S, Loisel, C, Peskett, L, Streck, C & Zarin, D 2009, REDD: An options assessment report, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>. Angelsen, A, Boucher, D, Brown, S, Merckx, V, Streck, C & Zarin, D 2011a, Guidelines for REDD+ Reference Levels: Principles and Recommendations, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>. Angelsen, A, Boucher, D, Brown, S, Merckx, V, Streck, C & Zarin, D 2011b, Modalities for REDD+ Reference Levels: Technical and Procedural Issues, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>. Climate Focus 2009, Developing Effective National REDD Programme: REDD and NAMAs, Climate Focus for WWF, Surrey, accessed from <http://www.climatefocus.com/documents/developing_effective_national_redd_programme s_redd_and_namas> Conservation International, 2012, Outcome of Bonn Climate Negotiations, Analysis from Conservation International, UNFCCC, May 14-25 2012, Bonn, Germany. Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency 2012, Australia's Fast Start Finance Update Report, accessed 28 September 2012 at <www.climatechange.gov. au/government/international/finance.aspx>. Corbera, E, Estrada, M & Brown, K 2010, ‘Reducing greenhouse gas emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries: revisiting the assumptions’, Climate Change, vol. 100, no.3-4, pp. 355-388. Eliasch, J 2008, Climate change: financing global forests, Office of Climate Change UK, London. Government of Canada, 2012, 'Canada's fast-start financing: progress report', accessed 26 September 2012 from<www.climatechange.gc.ca>. Greenpeace, 2011, 'Greenpeace position on Reference Levels for REDD', accessed 2 October 2012 from<www.greenpeace.org>.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 27 | P a g e Harris, NL, Brown, S, Hagen, SC, Saatchi, SS, Petrova, S, Salas, W, Hansen, MC, Potapov, PV & Lotsch, A 2012, ’Baseline map of carbon emissions from deforestation in tropical regions’, Science, vol. 336, no. 6088, pp. 1573-1576. Humane Society International 2011, HSI Meeting Report, UNFCCC SBSTA 34, Bonn. Institute for Global Environmental Strategies (IGES) 2012, ‘IGES briefing note on REDD+ negotiation: UN Climate Change Conference, Bonn, Germany, 14 to 25 May 2012 ’,IGES, Hayama. International Indigenous People Forum on Climate Change 2011, ‘Analysis of Cancun LAC text’, Asian Indigenous People CCMIN, accessed from <http://ccmin.aippnet.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=category&layout=blog&id= 9&Itemid=34>. Kant, P, Chaliha, S & Shuirong, W 2011, ‘The REDD safeguards in Cancun’, Institute of Green Economy Working Paper, New Delhi. Kementerian Kehutanan Indonesia, Kelompok Kerja Perubahan Iklim, 2010, 'Laporan lengkap delegasi kementerian kehutanan pada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta, FCCWG Indonesia. Kementerian Kehutanan Indonesia, Kelompok Kerja Perubahan Iklim, 2011, 'United Nations Cliamte Change Conference, Panama, 1-7 Oktober 2011', Jakarta, PPIKK & UN-REDD Programme Indonesia. Klavier, R 2010, ‘Reference emission levels: international perspective’, UN-REDD Programme, Jakarta, accessed from <http://www.dnpi.go.id/mrv2/Sesi%20I/Reference%20Emission%20Levels%20International%2 0Perspective_Rogier%20Klaver.pdf>. Moss, N & Nussbaum, R 2011, A Review of Three REDD+ Safeguard Initiatives, FCPF and UN-REDD Programme, Washington, DC. Papua New Guinea 2009, ‘PNG views on reference emission levels and reference levels for REDD’, Expert Meeting 23-24 March, Bonn, accessed from<http://unfccc.int/files/methods_and_science/lulucf/application/pdf/png_conrad_png_vi ews_on_reference_emission_levels_and_reference_levels.pdf>. Parker, C, Mitchell, A, Trivedi, M & Mardas, N 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, Global Canopy Programme, Oxford. Sanchez, MJS 2010, ‘REDD-plus from the UNFCCC‘s perspective: status of play, needs and expectations’, Paper presented at Ad Hoc Expert Group Meeting of the UNFF (United Nations Forum on Forest), Nairobi, 13-17 September. Sanz-Sanchez, MJS 2010, ‘Current status and outcomes of REDD negotiations under UNFCCC’, Paper presented in January 2011, UNFCCC, accessed from <http://www.cbd.int/doc/meetings/for/wscbredd-apac-01/other/wscbredd-apac-01-unfccc- en.pdf>.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 28 | P a g e Simula, M 2009, ‘REDD finance mechanisms: TFD background paper’, Draft for discussion, UNFCCC, accessed from <http://unfccc.int/files/methods_science/redd/application/pdf/tfd-redd- finance-background-paper.pdf>. The Forest Dialogue 2010, TFD Review: Investing in REDD-Plus- Consensus Recommendations on Frameworks for the Financing and Implementation of REDD-plus, The Forest Dialogue, New Haven, accessed from <http://environment.yale.edu/tfd/uploads/TFD_FCC_Review_InvestingInREDD-plus_lo- res.pdf>. UN 2009, Innovative Financing for Development: the I-8 Group Leading Innovative Financing for Equity (L.I.F.E), UN, New York. UNFCCC 2007, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Thirteenth Session, Held in Bali from 3 to 15 December 2007: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties, UNFCCC COP-13, Bali. UNFCCC 2009, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Fifteenth Session, Held in Copenhagen from 7 to 19 December 2009: Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties, UNFCCC COP-15, Copenhagen. UNFCCC 2011a, Fact Sheet: Reducing Emissions from Deforestation in Developing Countries – Approaches to Stimulate Action, UNFCCC, Bonn. UNFCCC 2011b, Report of the Conference of the Parties on Its Sixteenth Session, Held in Cancún from 29 November to 10 December 2010: Addendum Part Two: Action Taken by the Conference of the Partiesat Its Sixteenth Session–Decisions Adopted by the Conference of the Parties (Decision 1/CP.16: The Cancun Agreements: Outcome of the work of the Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention), UNFCCC COP-16 (FCCC/CP/2010/7/Add.1), Cancún. UNFCCC 2011c, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Items relating to Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 77 (FCCC/AWFLCA/2010/L.7) for exploring financing options for the full implementation of REDD+ results-based actions—Submission by Mexico and Colombia. UNFCCC 2011d, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action, Submission from India on possible outcome in Durban in respect of the financial mechanism of REDD-plus to Antonio La Vina, Facilitator, Informal Group on REDD+ of LCA. UNFCCC 2011e, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Proposal for a draft decision on policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancement of forest carbon stocks in developing countries—Submission by Poland and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and its member states, Warsaw. UNFCCC 2011f, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention— Submission by the United States of America on long-term finance, Durban.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 29 | P a g e UNFCCC 2011g, SBSTA: Methodological Guidance for Activitiesrelating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries—views submitted by the World Bank, UNFCCC (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/L.14), Bonn. UNFCCC 2011g, ‘Press Release: Durban Conference delivers breakthrough in international communityís response to climate change ,UNFCCC, Durban, accessed from <http://unfccc.int/files/press/press_releases_advisories/application/pdf/pr20111112cop17fin al.pdf>. UNFCCC 2012, Methodological Guidance for Activities Relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries, UNFCCC SBSTA- 36 (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/L.9/Rev.1), Bonn. UNFCCC 2012a, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action (AWG-LCA): Informal Summary of the In-session Workshop on Financing Options fo rthe Full Implementation of Results-based Actions relating to REDD+, including Modalities and Procedures for Financing These Results-based Actions, Bangkok. UNFCCC 2012b, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention: Informal Additional Session on Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries (Agenda item 3(b)(iii)) – Informal note, Bangkok. UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. UNFCCC 2012d, SBSTA-36: Views on Issues Identified in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 72 and Appendix II – Submissions from Parties, UNFCCC (FCCC/SBSTA/2012/MISC.1), Bonn. UNFCCC 2012e, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention: Informal Additional Session on Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries (Agenda item 3(b)(iii)), Views on modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and considering activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68-70 and 72—Submissions from Parties (Brazil and Malawi), Bonn. UN-REDD Programme2011, ‘Knowledge and Lessons – Reference Scenario: Establishing Reference Emission Levels’, UN-REDD Programme in the Asia and Pacific, Bangkok, accessed from <http://www.iisd.org/pdf/2011/redd_lessons_learned_rel.pdf>. UN-REDD Programme 2012a, ‘Deciphering UNFCCC Decisions on national forest monitoring systems for REDD+’, UN-REDD Programme, Bangkok. UN-REDD Programme 2012b, ‘Lessons-learned (Asia Pacific): implementation framework – benefit distribution’, UN-REDD Programme, Bangkok.
  • Appendix 1: Matrix of Parties’, Groups of Countries’ and Key Organizations’ Positions on REDD+ No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference Governments 1 ASEAN 2011: REDD+ 2011: National REL/RLs could be a combination of sub-national REL/RLs, countries could select national/sub-national approaches for establishing REL/RLs according to national circumstances, national REL/RLs should only be required during full implementation, REDD+ countries to develop their own MRV mechanism transparently 2010: Flexibility in national and sub- national levels 2011: Phased approach (1: development of national strategies and capacity building, 2: implementation of national policies, technology development and results based demonstration activities, 3: results based actions that require full MRV), implementation of REDD+ depends on specific national circumstances 96 2 Association of Small Island (AOSIS) States 2008: REDD+ 2008: Historical adjusted 2008: Include safeguards for biodiversity 2008: Include safeguards for indigenous and local communities 2008: Phased approach 2008: Additional mechanism 97 96 KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2011, 'United Nations Cliamte Change Conference, Panama, 1-7 October 2011', Jakarta, PPIKK & UN-REDD Programme Indonesia. 97 Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 31 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 3 Australia 2009: REDD+ 2009: Projected 2009: Include safeguards for biodiversity; 2012: include environmental safeguards in monitoring system (robust information) 2009: Include safeguards for indigenous and local communities; 2012: include social safeguards in monitoring system (robust information) 2009: national level, supporting sub-national implementation 2009: Market based and phased approach (short term funding for capacity building); 2010: result- based funding; 2011: long-term finance from public, private and innovative sources; 2012: allocates 24% of Australia's US$615.2 million Fast Start Finance for REDD+ initiatives targeting small island developing states and LDCs to build capacity to participate in carbon markets 2009: Market-based (long term) & fund approach (short term); 2011: multilateral funding should flow through the Green Climate Fund; US Fast Start Climate Financing Fiscal Year 2011 provided US$329 million for REDD+ related activities, including US$4 million to assist governments and NGOs in 6 Central American countries in building regional capacity for REDD+ 98 98 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) Commonwealth of Australia, Department of Climate Change and Energy Efficiency, 2012, 'Australia's Fast Start Finance Update Report', accessed 28 September 2012 at <www.climatechange.gov. au/government/international/finance.aspx>
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 32 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 4 Bolivia 2009-2012: REDD+ (global), Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism for the Integral and Sustainable Management of Forests (Bolivia) 2012: Does not object towards REDD+ implementation in other countries, however proposes that a Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism be implemented in Bolivia 2012: Objects against a market based mechanisim or an incentive system based on the verified reduction of emissions from deforestation and forest degradation; proposes an alternative scheme (Joint Mitigation and Adaptation Mechanism) that supports sustainable management of forests through an approach which is based on the convergence of rights, duties and obligations, rather than on the payment for environmental services. Includes criteria: respecting nature and indigenous rights, duties of States to establish appropriate institutional conditions, obligations of developed countries to support developing countries through flows of financial resources devoted to climate change mitigation and adaptation. 99 99 (1) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn, (2) UN-REDD 2012, Report on the high-level mission to Bolivia and recommendations to theUN-REDD Policy Board, UN-REDD Program 9th Policy Board Meeting (UNREDD/PB9/2012/III/2), Brazzaville.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 33 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 5 Brazil 2009: REDD; 2012: REDD+ 2009: Historical / Reference emissions rate (average rate of deforestation over previous 10 year period starting from implementation within UNFCCC, recalculated every 3 years); developed the Amazon Fund--a sub-national RL for gross deforestation of aboveground biomass for the Legal Amazon region (in connection with Norway's $1 billion results based compensation for emissions reductions); 2012: results-based actions shall be MRVed at the national level 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be monitored, reported and verified 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be monitored, reported and verified 2009: National level 2009: Voluntary funds; 2012: appropriate market based mechanisms, multilateral funding should flow through financial mechanisms under the Convention such as the Green Climate Fund, private sector involvement for phase 3 only 100 100 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2012e, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention: Informal Additional Session on Policy Approaches and Positive Incentives on Issues relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestationand Forest Degradation in Developing Countries; and the Role of Conservation, Sustainable Management of Forests and Enhancement of Forest Carbon Stocks in Developing Countries (Agenda item 3(b)(iii)), Views on modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and considering activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68-70 and72—Submissions from Parties (Brazil and Malawi), Bonn, (3) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta, FCCWG Indonesia, (4) UNFCCC 2012c,Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 34 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 6 Canada 2008: REDD; 2012: REDD+ 2008: Historical adjusted, taking into account national circumstances; 2011: REL/RLs and baselines should be flexible and based on the circumstances of countries 2011: Country experiences can provide lessons for measuring and reporting safeguards e.g. FPIC, community forest management, PES, SES, forest certification, broad participation of stakeholders (indigenous peoples and local communities) is needed to identify and measure impacts and safeguards. 2008: National level 2012: Canada provides US$40.3 million through technical and financial assistance to prepare REDD+ readiness for developing country governments through its Fast Start Financing commitment within World Bank's Forest Carbon Partnership Facility (FCPF) program (financing 35 out of 37 REDD+ country participants), contributing to the development of REDD+ monitoring tools and methodologies through the Global Observation of Forest and Land Cover Dynamics (GOFC-GOLD) 101 7 China 2008: REDD+ 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be MRVed 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be MRVed 2008: Demonstration activities at both national and sub- national levels 2008: Open to discuss non-market and market-based mechanisms; 2010: result-based funding; 2011: basket approach (private-public, bilateral-multilateral, market-non market, Green Climate Fund); 2012: public sources of financing 102 101 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) Government of Canada, 2012, 'Canada's fast-start financing: progress report', accessed 26 September 2012 at www.climatechange.gc.ca. 102 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta,FCCWG Indonesia, (3) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 35 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 8 Colombia 2009: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted; 2011: financial support for results- based actions should be quantified against a national/sub- national forest RL/REL that is MRVed through national systems 2009: National, sub-national level 2009: Voluntary funds; 2011: market-based mechanisms should be voluntary; 2012: operating entities of the financial mechanisms under the convention 2009: Additional mechanism; 2011: incentives for countries with significant carbon stocks but lower deforestation rates, financial support directed to national/sub- national governments/trust funds 103 9 Congo Basin / Central African Forest Commission (COMIFAC) 2008-2012: REDD 2008: Historical adjusted (combination of historical reference emissions rate and a development adjustment factor), 2010: global REL/RLs shouldn't be incorporated within REDD+ but in a larger shared vision 2008: National and sub-national levels 2008-2012: Market, phased approach 2008: Redistributive and additional mechanism 104 103 1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2011c, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Items relating to Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 77 (FCCC/AWFLCA/2010/L.7) for exploring financing options for the full implementation(of REDD+ results-based actions—Submission by Mexico and Colombia. 104 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta,FCCWG Indonesia, (3) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 36 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 10 Coalition of Rainforest Nations 2009-2012: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted (national reference emissions or removal level using historical data over the last 5 years) 2009: National level 2009: market, market-linked, voluntary funds, phased approach; 2010: result-based funding; 2011: dedicated window for REDD+ in the Green Climate Fund; 2012: private & public capital to fund different phases, new market mechanisms (private sector involvement for phase 3 only), REDD-plus mechanism 2009: Additional mechanism 105 11 G77 (developing countries) + China 2012: REDD+ 2011: REDD+ activities should be framed under national laws and policies, and to not affect national interests 2011: Include safeguards for indigenous peoples and local communities 2011: Fund based mechanism (allows for equitable distribution of funds); 2012: Undecided with financial mechanisms, esp. Bolivia which refuses market-mechanisms and pushes for a Joint Mitigation and Adaptation scheme 106 105 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta,FCCWG Indonesia (3) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. 106 (1) Humane Society International 2011, HSI Meeting Report, UNFCCC SBSTA 34, Bonn, (2) Conservation International, 2012, 'Outcome of Bonn Climate Negotiations,' Analysis from ConservationInternational, UNFCCC, May 14-25 2012, Bonn, Germany.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 37 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 12 India 2009-2011: REDD+ 2009: Historical, 2010: global REL/RLs shouldn't be incorporated within REDD+ but in a larger shared vision 2011: Include safeguards for forest ecosystem services 2011: Include safeguards for indigenous peoples and local communities 2009: Market-based; 2010: result- based funding; 2011: market and non-market, private-public, bilateral-multilateral, REDD+ window in Green Climate Fund) 2009: Additional mechanism 107 13 Indonesia 2009-2012: REDD+; 2011: REDD+ and NAMAs (concerns if both were linked closely in negotiations, need to ensure coherence between policy, actions and MRV of both) 2009: Historical and projected, 2010: global REL/RLs shouldn't be incorporated within REDD+ but in a larger shared vision 2010: Include safeguards for biodiversity 2010: Safeguards for indigenous peoples should follow each country's constitution 2009: Market, phased approach; 2011: basket approach (private- public, bilateral-multilateral, market-non market, Green Climate Fund); 2012: dedicated REDD-plus window under the Green Climate Fund 108 107 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2011d, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action , Submission from India on possible outcome in Durban in respect of the financial mechanism of REDD-plus to Antonio La Vina, Facilitator, InformalGroup on REDD+ of LCA, (3) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta, FCCWG Indonesia, (4) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementationof Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. 108 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta,FCCWG Indonesia, (3) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2011, 'United Nations Cliamte Change Conference, Panama, 1-7 October 2011', Jakarta, PPIKK & UN-REDD Programme Indonesia, (4) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to theActivities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 38 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 14 Japan 2009-2012: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted 2011: long-term finance from public, private and innovative sources; 2012: through the Japan Fast Start Finance, US$578 million has been allocated for REDD+ initiatives to assist developing countries (esp. Africa and LDCs) conduct surveys of forest resources, formulate forest management plans, and facilitate forestation by providing necessary equipment (forest conservation programs in 21 countries US$158 million, contribution to UN REDD US$3.2 million) 109 15 Malaysia 2008: REDD+ 2008: Historical adjusted 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be MRVed 2010: Object against safeguards that need to be MRVed 2008: National and project-based levels 2008: Market-based and fund- based approaches; 2010: result- based funding; 2012: Green Climate Fund 110 109 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2012f, Japan's fast-start finance for developing countries up to 2012, accessed 30 September 2012 at http://unfccc.int/files/cooperation_support/financial_mechanism/fast_start_finance/application/pdf/japan_fsf(feb_2012).pdf. 110 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 December 2010', Jakarta,FCCWG Indonesia, (3) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 39 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 16 Mexico 2009-2011: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted; 2011: financial support for results- based actions should be quantified against a national/sub- national forest RL/REL that is MRVed through national systems; 2012: parties to establish national registries to account for the verified emission reductions and carbon stock units 2009: National and sub-national levels 2009: Market and market-linked (REDD), Green Fund (RE+); 2011: market-based mechanisms should be voluntary; 2012: Green Climate Fund 2009: Additional mechanism; 2011: incentives for countries with significant carbon stocks but lower deforestation rates, financial support directed to national/sub- national governments/trust funds 111 17 New Zealand 2009: REDD; 2010: REDD+ 2009: REL/RLs should be established according to national circumstances, however, a process needs to be established on how these levels can be confirmed by the international community 2009: National and global level 2009: Market approach and phased approach, some form of fund to aid countries' development of a national-level approach; 2010: committed to fast start finance to fund REDD+ activities 112 111 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2011c, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Items relating to Decision 1/CP.16, paragraph 77 (FCCC/AWFLCA/2010/L.7) for exploring financing options for the full implementationof REDD+ results-based actions—Submission by Mexico and Colombia, (3) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. 112 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 40 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 18 Norway 2009: REDD, REDD+ (and AFOLU); 2011: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted (future establishment of global reference levels), RLs based on agreed criteria across countries and adheres to the principle of global additionality; 2011: RLs should be based on historic emissions and removals in accordance with national circumstances and progression through the phases of of REDD+ implementation, RLs may be adjusted from the historically based projection 2009: Include measures to involve indigenous peoples and local communities in MRV and REDD related governing bodies 2009: Sub-national transitions to national levels 2009: Market-linked and phased approach (voluntary funds for Phase 1, binding industrialised country funds for Phase 2); Gov't of Norway's Int'l Climate and Forest Initiative (US$500 million annually on eligible emissions reductions in developing countries, US$80 million to UN-REDD Programme Fund, US$1 billion to Brazil's Amazon Fund, US$1 billion to Indonesian gov't); 2010: phased approach (voluntary funds in first phase, mix of public funding and carbon markets in final phase); 2012: establishment of an international registry for carbon units and credits, dedicated REDD+ window under the Green Climate Fund 113 19 Panama 2009: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted (global deforestation baseline) 2009: Include measures for environmental benefits 2009: Include measures for local community and indigenous 2009: Market, market-linked, fund approach 2009: Additional mechanism 114 113 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) Angelsen A, Brown S, Loisel C, Peskett L, Streck C &Zarin D 2009, REDD: An options assessment report, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>, (3) Angelsen A, Boucher D,Brown S, Merckx V, Streck C &Zarin D 2011a, Guidelines for REDD+ Reference Levels: Principles and Recommendations, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>, (4) Angelsen A, Boucher D, Brown S, Merckx V, Streck C &Zarin D 2011b, Modalities for REDD+ Reference Levels:Technical and Procedural Issues, Prepared for the Government of Norway, Meridien Institute, accessed from <http://REDD-OAR.org>, (5) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including RelatedModalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn. 114 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009,The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global CanopyFoundation.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 41 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference people's participation and benefit sharing 20 UK + EU 2009-2011: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted; 2010: global REL/RLs should be incorporated within REDD+; 2011: incorporation of MRV; 2012: REDD+ emission reduction results should be assessed against independent review 2011: Include measures for biodiversity co- benefits, safeguards need to be MRVed 2011: Include measures for poverty alleviation, safeguards need to be MRVed 2009: National and sub-national levels 2009: Market, market-linked, phased approach; 2011: long-term finance from public, private and innovative sources; 2012: operating entities of the financial mechanisms under the convention, As part of their commitment under the Copenhagen Accord, through the EU Fast Start Finance, 27 EU member states have allocated US$404.4 million in 2011 for REDD+ readiness in developing countries (including capacity building for MRVs and improving forest governance) 115 115 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2012g, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, EU Fast Start Finance Report—Submission by Denmark and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and its member states, Bonn,(3) UNFCCC 2011e, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Proposal for a draft decision on policy approaches and positive incentives on issues relating to reducing emissions from deforestation and forest degradation in developing countries, and the role of conservation, sustainable management of forests and enhancementof forest carbon stocks in developing countries—Submission by Poland and the European Commission on behalf of the European Union and its member states, Warsaw, (4) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun,Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta, FCCWG Indonesia, (5) UNFCCC 2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper,UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 42 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 21 USA 2009-2012: REDD+ 2009: Historical adjusted 2012: safeguards focus on (1) actions consistent with objectives of national forest programs and relevant international agreements, (2) transparent and effective national forest governance structures, (3) respect for the knowledge and rights of indigenous peoples and local communities, (4) effective participation of stakeholders mentioned above, (5) actions consistent with conservation of natural forests and biological diversity, (6) actions to address the risk of reversals, (7) actions to reduce displacement of emissions 2009: National and sub-national levels 2009: Market-based (long term) & fund approach (short term); 2011: multilateral funding should flow through the Green Climate Fund; US Fast Start Climate Financing Fiscal Year 2011 provided US$329 million for REDD+ related activities, including US$4 million to assist governments and NGOs in 6 Central American countries in building regional capacity for REDD+; 2012: operating entities of the financial mechanisms under the convention 116 116 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) US Government, 2011, 'Meeting the fast start commitment, U.S. Climate Finance in Fiscal Year 2011', accessed 25 September 2012 at <www.state.gov/ faststartfinance>, (3) UNFCCC 2011h, Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention—Submission by the United States of America on long-term finance, Durban, (4) UNFCCC 2012f, SBSTA-36: Views on potential additional guidance on informing on how all safeguards are being addressed and respected—Submission from a Party (USA), Bonn, (4) UNFCCC2012c, Financing Options for the Full Implementation of Results Based Actions relating to the Activities Referred to in Decision 1/CP.16, Paragraph 70, including Related Modalities and Procedures – Technical Paper, UNFCCC (FCCC/TP/2012/3), Bonn.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 43 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 22 The Umbrella Group of developed countries (Australia, Japan, NZ) 2011: REDD+ 2012: Safeguards to ensure environmental integrity on REDD+ 2010: result-based funding; 2011: protests that emissions reduction responsibility should be shared by all major emitters (rapidly industrialising developing countries such as Brazil, South Africa, India and China), open markets mechanism 117 Non-Parties and/or Observers 1 Greenpeace 2008-2012: REDD 2008: Historical; 2012: using Intact Forest Landscapes (IFLs) to compare changes in condition against a reference forest state from which national degradation levels can be compared within the term of a commitment period, it reflects differences in the history and intensity of economic development and GHG emissions from forest degradation, RLs should be based upon a 5-10 year period of time to level out periodic variances, must be national in scope, and be made publicly available and verified by an independent third- party review system. 2008-2012: Include safeguards for biodiversity 2008-2012: Include safeguards for indigenous and local communities 2012: National and sub-national level 2008: Market-based; 2012: Hybrid market (mix between public funds and market mechanism), against carbon trading 118 117 (1) Humane Society International, 2011, 'HSI Meeting Report', UNFCCC SBSTA 34, Bonn, June 2011, (2) KementerianKehutanan Indonesia, KelompokKerjaPerubahanIklim, 2010, 'Laporanlengkapdelegasikementeriankehutananpada UNFCCC COP-16, Cancun, Mexico, 29 November - 10 Desember 2010', Jakarta, FCCWG Indonesia 118 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) Greenpeace, 2011, 'Greenpeace position on Reference Levels for REDD', accessed 2 October 2012 at www.greenpeace.org.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 44 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 2 Rainforest Foundation, Forest Peoples Programme, Friends of the Earth 2012: REDD+ 2012: Determining carbon baselines/RLs is unreliable and politically risky, thus an alternative is to define a performance criteria focusing on indicators of governance, performance in implementing safeguards, institutional and legal reform. Indicators should be country specific, and developed through inclusive, participatory multi-stakeholder national processes. 2012: Include environmental safeguards for biodiversity 2012: Include social safeguards for indigenous peoples (also forest governance, tenure rights, gender equity) 2012: Phased approach, public and private sources (fast start finance, global carbon markets and alternative sources of finance) 119 3 TNC 2009-2012: REDD+ 2009: Historical; 2012: RL/RELs to be reviewed and MRVed at national/sub-national level, and also global level 2012: Include environmental safeguards for biodiversity 2012: Include social safeguards for indigenous peoples 2009: Project and national-level 2009: Market and phased approach; 2011: fast start REDD+ finance; 2012: commit financing for 2013-2020 timeframe (especially phase 1 & 2 activities), agree upon emissions reductions targets; achievement of co-benefits may allow access to funding beyond carbon funding such as biodiveristy financing; develop GHG and finance registry to provide an independent record of emissions reduction performance and financial flows. 2009: Redistributive and additional mechanism 120 119 UNFCCC 2012i, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Views on modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions and considering activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68, 69, 70 and 72—views submitted by Civil Society. 120 (1) Parker C, Mitchell A, Trivedi M, Mardas N, Sosis K 2009, The Little REDD+ Book, 3rd edition, Global Canopy Foundation, (2) UNFCCC 2012j, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Views on modalities and procedures for financing results-basedactions and considering activities related to decision 1/CP/16, paragraphs 68-70 and 72—Submission on behalf of the Amazon Environmental Research Institute, Conservation International, Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, Rainforest Alliance, The NatureConservancy, Union of Cuncerned Scientists, Wildlife Conservation Society, Woods Hole Research Centre, World Vision International.
  • Geopolitical map of REDD+ negotiation: an analytical report 45 | P a g e No Parties, groups of countries or key organizations Position on REDD+ (REDD: only deforestation & forest degradation; REDD+: all included) Reference Level (RLs)/ Reference Emissions Level (RELs) Safeguards - Biodiversity Safeguards - Indigenous People National / Sub- national implementation Financing Distribution Mechanism Reference 4 World Bank 2011: REDD+ 2011: Include safeguards for natural habitats and forests 2011: Include safeguards for indigenous peoples 2011: Phased approach; 2012: Public and private financing (aid, trade, CSR) 2012: Performance based payments (monitored and verified emissions reductions) 121 5 WWF 2012: REDD+ 2012: Link finance levels for phase 3 with national RL/RELS and clarify the link between the level of accuracy in deliverables of MRV systems and financial mechanisms; RL/RELs to be reviewed at national/sub- national level, and also global level, to ensure overall climate integrity; importance of developing guidance for RL/RELs assessment and involving public comments. 2012: Include environmental safeguards for biodiversity 2012: Include social safeguards for indigenous peoples 2012: National and sub-national level 2012: Phased approach; basket approach in finance sources; create REDD+ window under the Green Climate Fund; develop REDD+ Finance Climate Registry to match supply and demand of funds and use comparable standards; REDD+ credits should be included in compliance market-based mechanisms during Phase 3 only if they represent performance-based results that is incorporated into a national accounting system, fully monitored, reported and verified at the national level 2012: Performance based payments (monitored and verified emissions reductions) 122 121 (1) UNFCCC 2011g, SBSTA: Methodological Guidance for Activities relating to Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Forest Degradation in Developing Countries—views submitted by the World Bank, UNFCCC (FCCC/SBSTA/2011/L.14), Bonn, (2) UNFCCC 2012k, Ad Hoc WorkingGroup on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions, and on activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68-70 and 72—views submitted by the World Bank Group. 122 UNFCCC 2012l, Ad Hoc Working Group on Long-Term Cooperative Action under the Convention, Modalities and procedures for financing results-based actions, and on activities related to decision 1/CP.16, paragraphs 68-70 and 72—views submitted by WWF.
  • Appendix 2: List of interviewees and participants of focus group discussions (FGDs) (In no particular order) 1. Mr Yuyu Rahayu (UN-REDD Indonesia Programme and the Ministry of Forestry) 2. Dr Yetti Rusli (Dewan Nasional PerubahanIklim/ The National Council on Climate Change and the Ministry of Forestry) 3. Dr Doddy Sukadri (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim/ The National Council on Climate Change) 4. Dr Nur Masripatin (The Ministry of Forestry) 5. Ms Laksmi Banowati (UN-REDD Indonesia Programme and the Ministry of Forestry) 6. Dr Machfudh (UN-REDD Indonesia Programme and the Ministry of Forestry) 7. Dr Agus Sari (REDD+ Task Force) 8. Dr Suzanty Sitorus (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim/ The National Council on Climate Change) 9. Mr Iwan Wibisono (REDD+ Task Force) 10. Mr Muhammad Farid (Dewan Nasional Perubahan Iklim/ The National Council on Climate Change) 11. Mr Wandojo Siswanto (Former Negotiator at the Ministry of Forestry) 12. Mr Boyke Lakaseru (Pelangi) 13. Mr Reza Anggara (Pelangi) 14. Ms Melati (Pelangi) 15. Ms Ulfah ZulFarisa (DewanNasionalPerubahanIklim/ The National Council on Climate Change) 16. Mr Ali Sungkar (PhD Candidate and the Ministry of Foreign Affairs) Notes: The first FGD was held on 15 October 2012 and the second on 19 October 2012. Both FGDs were conducted in Hotel Santika, Jakarta.